Crit feedback , 21st december.
more consideration to be given to the role of the title in the work. the use of date (14/06/1645) adds little. A better title would have been something along the lines of “Model for a museum that doesn’t exist – Naseby” which allowed for an engagement with the historic basis of the work whilst also leading into the idea of historical revisionism and cover up.
The decision to cover the work in plastic sheeting was made mid way through the production of the work and whilst i don’t regret it, I feel it needed more consideration. Without the presence of actual diorama figures depicting the event itself, the work ended up with a more ecological tone than a historic one. In retrospect I should have used something similar to a cloth dust sheet and made more effort to lend a tone of disrepair to the work, rather than the end result which felt more like an attempt at preservation.
With regards to the model itself, I feel the final work would have benefited either from the inclusion of an actual battle scene, which could have been covered to highlight to covering of events, or from the removal of the sheet and a renewed focus on the role of landscape as a carrier of historical significance and symbolism.As it stands the work became muddled between these two ideas and ended up as a representative of neither, loosing most of it’s impact.
With regards to the model , The topic of landscape as sculpture was touched upon. The idea that there exists no school of sculpture for the pure depiction of landscape without functional purpose was an interesting conclusion and one that i want to look into. The role of the museum model as a means of solidifying official or unofficial reading of history and as a tool for political dominance of historical narrative is one i hadn’t fully considered and one i want to look into alongside my interest in the sculptural depiction of landscape as subject.
Completed work sans plastic sheeting.
Work during installation with sheeting.